Should Giga be tagged as a scammer? - page 7.

burnside

legendary

Activity: 1106

Merit: 1004

Lead Blockchain Developer

Quote from: JoelKatz on December 03, 2012, 04:43:17 AM

Giga actually has no other option -- he never extended any trust to Nefaro/GLBSE nor did he ever agree to extend any. The contract doesn't obligate him to accept these costs and risks.

I'm going to have to disagree on that one. My own issue of LTC-MINING was only 1000 shares but I knew going into it that I had to trust GLBSE for the whole process to work for the lifespan of the asset. I thought about it, did some research, and decided that I could trust GLBSE to be available long term. Nefario was actively developing on it, progress was being made on outstanding issues, he was posting to the forums regularly, etc. I even went through all the "what if" scenarios in my head and decided that even if he decided to shut down, it would be easy for him to give a weeks warning, I'd buy back all the issues per my asset's contract, and be done. Thus I very intentionally and deliberately extended trust to GLBSE to perform their end of the bargain, which was made in exchange for 8 BTC up front, and a percentage of trades thereafter.

Everyone that used it extended trust to GLBSE, especially the asset issuers.

JoelKatz

legendary

Activity: 1596

Merit: 1012

Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.

Quote from: conspirosphere.tk on November 27, 2012, 05:16:26 PM

You trusted Nefario enough to take our money.

He never necessarily extended any trust to Nefario at all. Asset issuers don't have to extend any trust at all to the exchange. You don't have to trust someone to take someone else's money -- the person giving them the money has to trust them to do the right thing with it.

Quote from: stochastic on November 29, 2012, 05:15:54 PM

Quote from: theymos on November 24, 2012, 04:53:24 PM

I've decided that gigavps will not get a scammer tag for this. Nefario has proven himself to be untrustworthy, so it would be unreasonable for gigavps to pay out large sums of money based entirely on Nefario's list. Requiring affidavits and proofs of identity are reasonable precautions. It's impossible to strictly follow the contract in a safe way.

You know what I find interesting, is that when Nefario breaks a contract and claims he has to because he has no other option, he gets a scammer tag. When other people face the same situation they don't get a scammer tag. Especially those that won't take responsibility for their investments.

Surely you understand that there's a difference between claiming you have no other option and actually having no other option. We know of no reason Nefario couldn't have done an orderly shutdown of GLBSE. And his prior acts with Goat show that he was acting rashly and in complete disregard for his obligations to others. Giga actually has no other option -- he never extended any trust to Nefaro/GLBSE nor did he ever agree to extend any. The contract doesn't obligate him to accept these costs and risks.

burnside

legendary

Activity: 1106

Merit: 1004

Lead Blockchain Developer

Quote from: MPOE-PR on November 27, 2012, 04:47:36 AM

Quote from: burnside on November 26, 2012, 08:33:19 PM

but I'll also re-iterate that I do not believe Theymos should be involved in the scammer tag proceedings. I believe there's a fairly clear conflict of interest.

FTR, what is the conflict?

And at the rate things are going scammer tags will prolly just get phased out, the mods lack both the training to handle the ever-increasingly complex arguments brought and the drive to even bother, on top of which the constant haranguing which necessarily comes with the territory is wearing everyone thin.

Sooner or later we'll have to have some sort of court set-up, and the logistics of that are staggering.

Bit of a delayed response, sorry.

Theymos was one of the GLBSE stockholders/board members, screwed by Nefario. Right before GLBSE tanked he had started a thread on here wanting to sell his shares. I'd think he'd want to recuse himself from anything GLBSE related.

Cheers.

lenny_

legendary

Activity: 1036

Merit: 1000

DARKNETMARKETS.COM

Why admins didn't tag him as scammer yet? 110 votes total is not enough Huh

Bitcoin Oz

hero member

Activity: 686

Merit: 500

Wat

Quote from: wishfulthinking on November 29, 2012, 11:50:30 PM

Quote from: stochastic on November 29, 2012, 05:15:54 PM

You know what I find interesting, is that when Nefario breaks a contract and claims he has to because he has no other option, he gets a scammer tag. When other people face the same situation they don't get a scammer tag. Especially those that won't take responsibility for their investments.

Nefario scammed the top users of this forum, including at least one admin, giga just scammed a bunch of regular users.

Nefario was just the front man who allowed others to raise hundreds of thousands of coins.

wishfulthinking

newbie

Activity: 8

Merit: 0

Quote from: stochastic on November 29, 2012, 05:15:54 PM

You know what I find interesting, is that when Nefario breaks a contract and claims he has to because he has no other option, he gets a scammer tag. When other people face the same situation they don't get a scammer tag. Especially those that won't take responsibility for their investments.

Nefario scammed the top users of this forum, including at least one admin, giga just scammed a bunch of regular users.

stochastic

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

Quote from: theymos on November 24, 2012, 04:53:24 PM

I've decided that gigavps will not get a scammer tag for this. Nefario has proven himself to be untrustworthy, so it would be unreasonable for gigavps to pay out large sums of money based entirely on Nefario's list. Requiring affidavits and proofs of identity are reasonable precautions. It's impossible to strictly follow the contract in a safe way.

You know what I find interesting, is that when Nefario breaks a contract and claims he has to because he has no other option, he gets a scammer tag. When other people face the same situation they don't get a scammer tag. Especially those that won't take responsibility for their investments.

smoothie

legendary

Activity: 2492

Merit: 1473

LEALANA Bitcoin Grim Reaper

Quote from: BadBear on November 24, 2012, 01:42:20 PM

I do understand the arguments about not giving the scammer tag because of being under legal pressure, however I think some are viewing the scammer tag the wrong way. The scammer tag is not "You need to do this even though it may or may not be illegal". It's not about about dealing justice, or punishing people, or forcing people to do anything. The scammer tag is "He made x agreement, he can't or won't keep it". It's a warning about those who make promises they can't keep, and there's a lot of those around here.

IMO a scammer tag pretty clearly fits the situation, on the other hand he's a longstanding member (year and a half), has fairly good rep, and this is his first and only real incident. Have there been other incidents? Does he have any other investments?

Since when does someone have to have scammed before and then scam again to then get a scammer tag?

Give him the tag already.

cunicula

legendary

Activity: 1050

Merit: 1003

Quote from: superfastkyle on November 28, 2012, 12:01:50 AM

your worried about sending out a couple hundred coins by error when you have profited how much off your investors? $100,000 $250,000? $500,000, Get real

Quote from: jamesg on November 27, 2012, 05:47:48 PM

If I send out 65% of 3,500 coins (2,275) and 10% of the coins go to the wrong address, someone they shouldn't have gone to, etc. I've just made a $2,750 mistake and am still liable.

Though the profit calculations are inaccurate, this is a very good point.

You have to compare: 1) Sum Total costs of legal compliance for all shareholders. vs 2) Cost of Sending Payouts to scammers for GigaVPS

If (1) > (2), it would be more efficient for GigaVPS to divide the costs of paying out scammers among all shareholders and not require legal compliance.
If (2) > (1), it is more efficient for GigaVPS to require legal compliance.

Could the shareholders donate to a Scammer fund to motivate you to reverse your decision? If not, then GigaVPS is making a specious argument. i.e. his real reason is not the reason he claims.

superfastkyle

sr. member

Activity: 437

Merit: 250

your worried about sending out a couple hundred coins by error when you have profited how much off your investors? $100,000 $250,000? $500,000, Get real

Quote from: jamesg on November 27, 2012, 05:47:48 PM

If I send out 65% of 3,500 coins (2,275) and 10% of the coins go to the wrong address, someone they shouldn't have gone to, etc. I've just made a $2,750 mistake and am still liable.

server

legendary

Activity: 892

Merit: 1002

1 BTC =1 BTC

Quote from: jamesg on November 27, 2012, 05:47:48 PM

Put yourself in my shoes for a minute.

If I send out 65% of 3,500 coins (2,275) and 10% of the coins go to the wrong address, someone they shouldn't have gone to, etc. I've just made a $2,750 mistake and am still liable.

Does that sound like fun to you?

Nope, fun is long gone.
Maybe the payout problem can be solved by using a php script that verifies a payout of 0.01% -> user agree -> send 99.99%

But this is not the real problem.

SAC

sr. member

Activity: 322

Merit: 250

Quote from: jamesg on November 27, 2012, 05:47:48 PM

As to trusting nefario now vs. later, you can't do better until you know better.

There were problems with this bond in getting it listed from the start you knew better then.

conspirosphere.tk

legendary

Activity: 2352

Merit: 1064

Bitcoin is antisemitic

Quote from: jamesg on November 27, 2012, 05:47:48 PM

Put yourself in my shoes for a minute.

If I send out 65% of 3,500 coins (2,275) and 10% of the coins go to the wrong address, someone they shouldn't have gone to, etc. I've just made a $2,750 mistake and am still liable.

Does that sound like fun to you?

So, better to fuck a much greater number of ppl who trusted YOU?

jamesg

vip

Activity: 1358

Merit: 1000

AKA: gigavps

Quote from: server on November 27, 2012, 05:17:19 PM

You should not punnish 65% of your shareholders, the ones that did everything right.

Put yourself in my shoes for a minute.

If I send out 65% of 3,500 coins (2,275) and 10% of the coins go to the wrong address, someone they shouldn't have gone to, etc. I've just made a $2,750 mistake and am still liable.

Does that sound like fun to you?

You are basically telling me to not worry about my liabilities because nefario is getting it right. Only, he can't even send over a properly formatted yaml file which means he probably put the file together by hand.

There is also the issue of people who have filled out the GLBSE claims form and didn't receive a double payment, yet still aren't on the list. Is this still a situation of "your not on the list, o well"?

As to trusting nefario now vs. later, you can't do better until you know better.

Bitcoin Oz

hero member

Activity: 686

Merit: 500

Wat

Quote from: jamesg on November 27, 2012, 04:32:33 PM

Quote from: Bitcoin Oz on November 27, 2012, 04:26:08 PM

You mention that there are 10% of claims not on the list. My issue is that you are claiming you cant pay back the 90% of people because of this.

What exactly is preventing you paying out to the 90% who ARE ON THE LIST?

The solution is if you're not on the list you dont get paid yet. Youre holding 90% of people coins hostage because 10% of people claimed who arent on the list. If you cant see an issue with that I dont know how to explain it more clearly.

Less than 65% of the shares are on the list..... so that means more than 35% wouldn't get paid.

The claimants of the over 4k are very well respected and well know in the community.

Can you see the conundrum here?

Why do you condone trusting nefario after he destroyed your entire investment in GLBSE?

Do you also condone nefario's inability to do the most simplest things as a reason for someone to not be able to make a claim and get paid?

If you payout the 65% it might motivate the other 35% to make a glbse claim. At some stage you are going to need to trust the glbse shareholder list or otherwise your choice is to make your bondholders suffer.

Let me make this perfectly clear. Nefario needs to be sacked and a competent administrator appointed. But in the bitcoin world it appears there is nothing at all you an do if the operator goes rogue.

You can have all the bylaws and rules you want but if someone controls the server and the only information source there is fuck all you can do about it. It really calls for "multi sig for data" where one person cant just run off with the data.

server

legendary

Activity: 892

Merit: 1002

1 BTC =1 BTC

Quote from: jamesg on November 27, 2012, 04:32:33 PM

Less than 65% of the shares are on the list..... so that means more than 35% wouldn't get paid.

65% did everything that was required and should be rewarded without your extra demands.

35% did not agree to send you their GLBSE data. Their mistake.

You should not punnish 65% of your shareholders, the ones that did everything right.

conspirosphere.tk

legendary

Activity: 2352

Merit: 1064

Bitcoin is antisemitic

Quote from: jamesg on November 27, 2012, 04:32:33 PM

Quote from: Bitcoin Oz on November 27, 2012, 04:26:08 PM

You mention that there are 10% of claims not on the list. My issue is that you are claiming you cant pay back the 90% of people because of this.

What exactly is preventing you paying out to the 90% who ARE ON THE LIST?

The solution is if you're not on the list you dont get paid yet. Youre holding 90% of people coins hostage because 10% of people claimed who arent on the list. If you cant see an issue with that I dont know how to explain it more clearly.

Less than 65% of the shares are on the list..... so that means more than 35% wouldn't get paid.

The claimants of the over 4k are very well respected and well know in the community.

Can you see the conundrum here?

Why do you condone trusting nefario after he destroyed your entire investment in GLBSE?

Do you also condone nefario's inability to do the most simplest things as a reason for someone to not be able to make a claim and get paid?

You trusted Nefario enough to take our money. It' soo convenient that now you don't trust him any more. Maybe you should have asked an affidavit in advance? Guess how many investors you would had.

Anyway if less than 65% are on the list is due to unclaimed shares and double payments not returned according to Nefario. So ppl unlisted would not get paid now, due to their fault. Maybe they will be later if they act on it and you and Nefario follow up. This is no excuse for you to steal the coins of little investors and ppl who wants to remain private. Clear enough?

jamesg

vip

Activity: 1358

Merit: 1000

AKA: gigavps

Quote from: Bitcoin Oz on November 27, 2012, 04:26:08 PM

You mention that there are 10% of claims not on the list. My issue is that you are claiming you cant pay back the 90% of people because of this.

What exactly is preventing you paying out to the 90% who ARE ON THE LIST?

The solution is if you're not on the list you dont get paid yet. Youre holding 90% of people coins hostage because 10% of people claimed who arent on the list. If you cant see an issue with that I dont know how to explain it more clearly.

Less than 65% of the shares are on the list..... so that means more than 35% wouldn't get paid.

The claimants of the over 4k are very well respected and well know in the community.

Can you see the conundrum here?

Why do you condone trusting nefario after he destroyed your entire investment in GLBSE?

Do you also condone nefario's inability to do the most simplest things as a reason for someone to not be able to make a claim and get paid?

Bitcoin Oz

hero member

Activity: 686

Merit: 500

Wat

Quote from: jamesg on November 27, 2012, 04:13:02 PM

Quote from: server on November 27, 2012, 03:36:32 PM

Breaking contracts and changing the rules of the game while playing not.

Please help me understand how else I should handle this situation?

Maybe you have some insight that will help make the situation all better.

You mention that there are 10% of claims not on the list. My issue is that you are claiming you cant pay back the 90% of people because of this.

What exactly is preventing you paying out to the 90% who ARE ON THE LIST?

The solution is if you're not on the list you dont get paid yet. Youre holding 90% of people coins hostage because 10% of people claimed who arent on the list. If you cant see an issue with that I dont know how to explain it more clearly.

jamesg

vip

Activity: 1358

Merit: 1000

AKA: gigavps

Quote from: server on November 27, 2012, 03:36:32 PM

Breaking contracts and changing the rules of the game while playing not.

Please help me understand how else I should handle this situation?

Maybe you have some insight that will help make the situation all better.

Topic: Should Giga be tagged as a scammer? - page 7. (Read 17433 times)